Whether it constitutes non-business real estate

The forest of this case does not constitute non-business real estate as forest land for industrial non-business purpose. However, in the case of this case where the plaintiff corporation is not a corporation that runs the forestry as its main business, the disposition of this case which the defendant imposed the plaintiff on the plaintiff by not including the interest paid in deductible expenses on the premise

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the instant disposition;

Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of pleadings as evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2-1, 3-2, 3-1 through 4, 5-1, 5-1, 5-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the whole purport of pleadings as evidence Nos. 18-3 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act, 43-2 (5) of the same year from January 1, 1992 to December 31, 193; 1, 2, 3-1 through 4-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 9-2, 9-1, 5-2, 9-2, 9-1, 9-1, 5-2, 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994; and 5-1, 198-3, 5-1, 196-2, 18-4, 196-1,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a company for the purpose of manufacturing, processing, and selling wood. The plaintiff is a corporation for which the above provisions of the former Forestry Development Act, the Forestry Act, or the above provisions of Article 18-3 (2) of the same Act are owned for the purpose of afforestation of the forest land as the corporation for which the afforestation order was issued by the Administrator of the Forestry Administration on March 19, 1974. The defendant, on September 23, 1986, sold non-business real estate under the Industrial Development Act after selling non-business real estate under the industrial rationalization plan under the same Act. The above industrial rationalization plan also excluded the plaintiff from the property subject to sale. Thus, the plaintiff's disposal of the forest land can not be arbitrarily disposed of, and the corporation's disposal of the excess non-business real estate under Article 18-3 (1) of the same Act or order for non-business real estate under Article 18-13 (3) of the same Act was newly established for the purpose of non-taxation of the above excess corporation's forest land under the same Act.

(b) Relevant statutes;

(1) Article 18-3 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282, Dec. 31, 190; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount of the loans paid during each business year by the corporation which owns the loans in excess of the standards as prescribed by the Presidential Decree No. 1365, Mar. 24, 1994; and that the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree No. 1365, Dec. 3, 1997; hereinafter the same shall apply to the provisions of subparagraph 13; hereinafter the same shall apply to the provisions of Article 18-1; and

(2) With respect to a domestic corporation which acquires or holds assets falling under any of the following subparagraphs in each business year, the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (limited to interest on loans equivalent to the value of the concerned assets) from among the interest on loans paid during each business year shall not be included in the calculation of losses in accordance with the income amount for each business year, and the real estate which is deemed not directly related to the business of the concerned corporation under subparagraph 1 or to be held for the purpose of acquiring profits arising from the increase in land price by considering the actual use of the real estate as its actual use status, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 43-2 (1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 18 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 4 of the same Act, and Article 4 of the Addenda of the same Act, shall be excluded from the paid assets for business purposes, which are the forests for industrial use or afforestation acquired before the enforcement of this Rule:

Since Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 5-1, 3, and 6-1 to 8, Gap evidence 8-2, 3, 4-1 to 6-2, Gap evidence 9-1, 5-1 to 63, Gap evidence 10-1, 12-1, 3, 13-1 to 9-1, 9-2, Eul evidence 13-9, 9-1 to 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-2, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-2, and 9-1, 9-1, 1970-1, 97

In light of the above relevant laws and regulations, Article 18-3 (1) of the Act provides that Article 18-3 (2) of the Act provides that the non-deductible expenses for non-deductible expenses paid on the ground of holding assets for non-business use shall not be included in deductible expenses, and Article 18-3 (2) of the Act provides that real estate falling under Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the Act shall not be included in deductible expenses for excess of loan, and Article 18-3 (1) of the Act provides that Article 18-3 (2) of the Act intends to restrain the owner of assets for non-business use, and Article 18-3 (2) of the Act provides that Article 18-3 (2) of the Act provides that the corporation shall not be included in deductible expenses for non-business use, and therefore, Article 18-3 (1) of the Act provides that the plaintiff's new forest or forest land shall not be included in deductible expenses for non-business use under Article 18-3 (1) of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.